Abstract—Slag fuming is a process of extracting zinc from
molten slag in the form of metal vapor by injecting or adding a
reducing source such as pulverized or lump coal, natural gas,
etc. Top Submerged Lance (TSL) technology has been
successfully applied to extract zinc by a fuming process from
residues from the zinc industry, ISF and QSL slag and Lead
blast furnace slag. A Computational Fluid Dynamic model has
been developed for zinc slag fuming process from ISF slag to
investigate details of fluid flow and heat transfer in the furnace.
The models integrate complex combustion phenomena and
chemical reactions with the heat, mass and momentum
interfacial interaction between the phases present in the system.
The model is based on 3-D Eulerian multiphase flow approach
and it predicted the velocity and temperature field of the molten
slag bath and side wall heat fluxes. The model also predicted the
mass fractions of slag and gaseous components inside the
furnace. The model confirmed that rate of zinc fuming increases
with temperature and is broadly consistent with experimental
data.
Index Terms— Slag fuming, CFD, Top Submerged Lance, Zinc,
Multiphase.
I. INTRODUCTION
Primary production of zinc and lead produces slag or
residues, which can contain significant amounts of zinc. The
zinc content in these depends largely on the type of
concentrate and residue materials, method of extraction and
equipment used. Slag fuming is basically a secondary
operation which is an important unit operation in the
extraction of non-ferrous metals. Slag fuming has been used
since 1930s to recover zinc from lead blast furnace slag [1]. It
is mostly a batch process, in which a reducing mixture of air
and pulverized coal is injected into the molten slag together
with lump coal, however, Korea Zinc also fume in
continuously operating furnaces. The coal-air mixture
reduces the zinc oxide from the slag to metallic zinc vapor.
Zinc Fuming
Manuscript received March 17, 2010. The authors would like to express
their gratitude to the Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Science,
Swinburne University of Technology and Ausmelt Limited, for financial and
technical support.
Nazmul Huda, PhD student, J. Naser, Senior Lecturer, G. Brooks,
Professor, are with Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC
3122, Melbourne, Australia (Contact e-mail: [email protected])
M. A. Reuter, Chief Executive Technologist and R. W. Matusewicz,
Technical Development Manager, are with Ausmelt Limited, 12, Kitchen
Rd, Melbourne, VIC 3175, Australia.
Zinc slag fuming is a reductive treatment to recover zinc from
zinc containing slag. The earliest experimental work on zinc
fuming was conducted in Australia by Sulphide Corporation
at Cockle Creek between 1906 and 1920 [2]. The process has
become operative since 1930’s to recover zinc from lead blast
furnace slag. Operating temperatures lie between 1423 and
1573 K. The overall reactions occurring in the bath are,
( ) ( ) ( )gCOgZnCslag
ZnO +→+ (1)
COCOC 22
=+ (2)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )g
COZnCOZnO ggslag 2+→+ (3)
The overall chemical reaction in the bath is thought to be
controlled by the supply of carbon to the slag-gas interface
[2-4]. The main reaction (1) is endothermic and combustion
of fuel in the bath supplies the necessary heat. The vaporized
zinc oxidizes when it comes in contact with the air above the
zinc bath. The zinc oxide fume is subsequently collected in
the bag house. Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of the zinc
slag fuming process in the case of Top Submerged Lance
blowing.
Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of slag fuming process from
molten bath
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Suzuki et al. [5] investigated the factors effecting the zinc
fuming kinetics such as gas or slag composition, gas blow
rate, slag temperature, viscosity and surface tension on a
crucible scale experimental work. In their research, Suzuki et
al. [5] found that formation of bubbles in the molten slag bath
has a great influence on the zinc fuming kinetics. Richards et
al. [2-4] carried out extensive research on kinetics of zinc
slag-fuming process. In the first part of their research [2], they
used industrial measurements to investigate the kinetic
A Computational Fluid Dynamic Modeling
Study of Slag Fuming in Top Submerged Lance
Smelting Furnace
Nazmul Huda, J. Naser, G. Brooks, M. A. Reuter, R. W. Matusewicz
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, June 30 - July 2, 2010, London, U.K.
ISBN: 978-988-18210-7-2 ISSN: 2078-0958 (Print); ISSN: 2078-0966 (Online)
WCE 2010
phenomena in the zinc slag-fuming process. The industrial
work consisted of slag sampling through the cycles of
different fuming operations. They reported that the zinc
reduction curve is linear with time and a portion of the
injected coal entrains in the slag.
Later, Richards and Brimacombe [4] developed a
mathematical model of zinc slag fuming based on a two
reaction zones; (i) an oxidizing zone in the tuyere gas stream
and a separate (ii) reduction zone at the gas slag interface. The
authors reported that about 33% of the injected coal was
entrained in the slag, 55% combusted in the tuyere gas column
and 12% bypassed the bath completely. Richards and
Brimacombe [3] elucidated the rate limiting steps of the
fuming process and predicted the influence of process
variables on fuming by using the two zone kinetic model [4].
The model predicts that fuming efficiency reaches maximum
with increasing residence time of coal particles in the slag.
Cockcroft et al.[6] subsequently improved the model of
Richards et al. [3] by further consideration of mass transfer,
chemical kinetics and heat transfer in the system and also
including the behavior of lead in the bath. Cockcroft et al. [7]
reported that high pressure coal injection increased coal
entrainment about 25%, from 65% for low pressure to 90%
for high pressure. As a result fuming rates were increased
substantially, to between 70% and 90%, depending on the
charge mix. Richards [8] commented that coal entrainment is
controlled by injection conditions whereas bath temperature
is a function of coal combustion and ferrous oxide oxidation.
Further industrial studies have followed the studies by
Richards et al. [2-4, 8, 9] and Cockcroft et al. [6, 7]. Miyake
[10] described different aspects and optimized plant operating
conditions of a slag fumer at the Hachinohe Smelter. Choi
and Lee [11], Sofra et al. [12], Hughes et al. [13], Hoang et al.
[14] described the Ausmelt’s Top Submerged Lance (TSL)
technology for the processing of secondary zinc feed
materials, including zinc plant leach residues and EAF dust.
More recently, the present authors [15] developed a CFD
model for top submerged lance gas injection process, which
they validated against an air-water system.
Although commercial slag fuming is well established, there
have only been a few numerical modeling studies on zinc
fuming kinetics. Kellogg [16] developed the first computer
model for slag fuming process using programming language
Fortran IV. In that model, Kellogg assumes stepwise
equilibrium during each micro-step (0.1 minute in a 90 minute
period). No CFD analysis has been found in the open
literature regarding slag fuming. In this paper, we describe a
model we have developed that includes combustion, reactions
kinetics in CFD.
III. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE
A 3D model of the Ausmelt pilot plant was developed using
CAD. A schematic diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 2(a).
The modeled furnace has a diameter of D = 0.5 m and length Z
= 1.68 m. The modeled furnace was filled up to L=0.6 m with
ISF slag of composition shown by point A in Fig. 3. A vertical
lance with an annulus of inner diameter di = 30 mm and outer
diameter do
= 42 mm was fitted at the centre of the furnace.
Air was injected through the annulus of the lance and CH4 as
fuel through the central hole into the slag bath. Necessary heat
in the bath for smelting and reduction of the slag is supplied
by combusting CH4 at the lance tip.
A schematic diagram of the modeled furnace is shown on Fig.
2(a). Generated 3D course grid is shown in Fig. 2(b), fine grid
is not shown here for visual clarity. The computational grid
(283344 cells) used in the present study is too dense for visual
presentation. All the cells in the calculation domain were
polyhedral with a large number of hexahedral cells. As the
computational domain consisted of hybrid unstructured
meshes in curvilinear non-orthogonal coordinate system with
Cartesian base vectors and refined regions in some locations,
mentioning number of cells in each direction is complicated.
The meshing procedure was carried out using the Fame
Advanced Hybrid meshing technique [17].
(a) (b)
Fig. 2: (a) Schematic diagram of the modeled furnace for
Ausmelt’s pilot plant trials, (b) Generated grid for CFD
analysis
The multiphase flow simulation is based on Eulerian
approach where gas and liquid phases interact with each other
and there is significant exchange of momentum and energy
between phases. In addition to mass and energy exchange
between the constituents in each phase, there is also mass
exchange between the gas and molten slag phase due to the
phase transformation for chemical reaction in the slag bath.
The model was developed by using commercial CFD package
AVL FIRE 2008.2. Interfacial mass and energy exchange
were modeled by using user-defined subroutines (UDF). The
model developed include the following features,
1. Unsteady state multiphase solution for momentum
and continuity.
2. Standard k-ε turbulence model for the turbulence
modeling.
3. A cell centered finite volume approach was used to
discretise the governing equations and the resulting
discretised equations were solved iteratively using
segregated approach.
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, June 30 - July 2, 2010, London, U.K.
ISBN: 978-988-18210-7-2 ISSN: 2078-0958 (Print); ISSN: 2078-0966 (Online)
WCE 2010
4. Pressure and velocity were coupled using the
SIMPLE algorithm [18].
5. For momentum and turbulence, first order upwind
differencing scheme was used whereas central
differencing scheme with second order accuracy was
used for the continuity equation
6. All boundary conditions were chosen to match the
flow condition of the pilot plant trials of the Ausmelt
pilot plant.
Fig. 3: Simplified phase relationships for the reduction step in
an Ausmelt furnace for the components FeOx, ZnO, CaO and
SiO2 generated by FACT Sage [19] for the given temperature,
partial pressure as well as the lime content.
Basic Eulerian equations, describing multiphase combusting
system are given by the conservation equations for continuity,
momentum and enthalpy. Interfacial exchange terms for mass,
momentum and energy in the gas-liquid interface is discussed
below:
Interfacial Momentum Exchange
Momentum equation solved for the simulation can be
expressed as,
( )
∑∑≠=≠=
Γ+++
+∇+∇−=∇+∂
∂
N
kll
kl
N
kll
klkk
tkkkkkkkk
kkk
Mf
Tpvvt
v
,1,1
..
ρα
τααραρα
(4)
∑≠=
ΓN
kll
kl
,1
represents the interfacial mass exchange and
∑Ν
≠= kll ,1
Mkl represents the momentum interfacial interaction
between phases k and l, f is the body force vector which
comprises of gravity (g), p is pressure. Momentum interfacial
exchange between gas and liquid has been modeled by
implementing interfacial momentum source at the interface
which includes drag and turbulent dispersion forces [17]:
dMdckcTDCrvrviAcDCcM −=∇+′′′= αρρ8
1 (5)
where c denotes continuous and d denotes the dispersed
phase. The first term in equation (5) represents mean
contributions due to drag force and the second term takes into
account the turbulence effect. The turbulence effect is
represented by a global dispersion effect, which is
proportional to the void fraction gradient (cited in [20]).
The drag coefficient, DC , is a function of the bubble Reynolds
number, Reb
. The following correlation for drag
coefficient, DC , was used [17]:
( )687.0Re15.01
Re
24b
bDC +=
1000Re ≤b (6)
Bubble Reynolds number, Reb
, and can be defined as:
c
brb
D
υ
vRe =
(7)
Where cυ is the kinematic viscosity for continuous phase.
Relative velocity is defined as:
vr
= vd
- vc
The interfacial area density for bubbly flow can be expressed
as [17]:
b
di
DA
α6=′′′ (8)
where Db = 0.1 mm is the bubble diameter and dα is
dispersed phase volume fraction. Bubble dispersion
coefficient used in equation (5) was,
CTD
= 0.07
Combustion Modeling at the Lance Tip
For gas phase reaction, only one step CH4 combustion
reaction at the lance tip is considered as described by (9),
( ) 276.32222276.3224 NOHCONOCH ×++→++ (9)
Species transport equation solved for gas phase reaction can
be expressed as:
( ) ( )( )k
yS
ix
kyii
ky
ixkyiUiU
ixkyt
+
∂
∂Γ
∂
∂=−
∂
∂+
∂
∂δρρ
(10)
where ky represents the mass fraction of an individual
chemical species k. gasK is the total number of chemical
species. k
yΓ can be defined as:
+=Γ
tSc
tmkD
ky
µρ ,
(11)
where mkD , [m2/s] is the diffusion coefficient for each
species k in the mixture and 7.0=tSc is the turbulent
Schmidt number. The mass source kyS in the species
transport equation is defined as,
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, June 30 - July 2, 2010, London, U.K.
ISBN: 978-988-18210-7-2 ISSN: 2078-0958 (Print); ISSN: 2078-0966 (Online)
WCE 2010
CellVkMfuk
yS ..~ω&= (12)
Where, fuω~& [kmol/(m
3/s)] is the reaction rate of species k and
kM [kmol/kg] is the molecular weight of species k and cellV
[m3] is the volume of the computational cell. The rate of the
reaction of species k, fuω~& [kmol/(m
3/s)] is calculated by the
Eddy Break up combustion model [21].
+′−=
s
YC
s
YCYC
k
prR
ox
RfuRfu
1
~
,
~
,~
min~ ε
ρω& (13)
Interfacial Energy Exchange:
Total enthalpy conservation equation solved for the model
can be expressed as,
∑≠=
Γ+∑≠=
+
∂
∂+∇+′′′++∇=∇+
∂
∂
N
kllklkh
N
kllklH
t
p
kkv
kkkqkktkqkqkkhkvkkt
khkk
,1,1
..)(.. αταρααραρα (14)
where kq ′′′ is the enthalpy volumetric source, heat flux, kq , is
defined as,
k
kp
kk h
c
kq ∇=
,
(15)
where kk is the phase k thermal conductivity, kh is the phase
k enthalpy. Turbulent heat flux, tkq , equals:
k
T
tkt
k hq ∇=σ
µ (16)
klΓ and klH in equation (14) represents mass and energy
interfacial exchange between phases k and l. Heat generated
due to the CH4 combustion at the lance tip is transferred to the
molten slag phase by considering interfacial energy exchange
at the gas-liquid interface. Heat transfer between the two
phases is modeled by using Ranz-Marshal enthalpy exchange
model [17] as follows:
( ) dcdi
b
cc HTTANu
D
kH −=−′′′= *
(17)
where, ck is the thermal conductivity of the molten slag
phase, bD is the bubble diameter and iA ′′′ is the interfacial
area density defined as:
Nu is the Nusselt number and can be expressed as:
3
1
2
1
PrRe6.00.2 bNu += (18)
where, bRe is the local bubble Reynolds number, and Pr is
the Prandtl number.
Interfacial Mass Exchange
Interfacial mass exchange at the gas-liquid interface in the
slag fuming process occur only due to the chemical reaction in
the slag phase. Chemical species in the slag phase has been
defined by a number of scalars and the following scalar
equation has been solved for each scalar for slag phase
reaction.
kikikikkkikkkkikk SDv
t+∇∇=∇+
∂
∂φραφραφρα .. (19)
where kiS is the source term for different scalars.
Phase transformation between molten slag and gas phase was
considered by the following equation [17],
dc
nd
ncmxc C Γ−==Γ ραα 21 (20)
Where, c and d denotes the continuous and dispersed phase,
mxC is the rate of phase transformation, cρ is the density for
continuous phase, α is the volume fraction and volume
fraction exponent used in the model are n1 = 1 and n2 = 0.
Fluid properties and initial condition
The flow was started with small initial values assigned to k
and ε, which made the initial turbulent viscosity roughly equal
to the kinematic viscosity for molten slag. For gas phase
reaction given in equation (9), fluid and thermal properties of
the different species involved in the solution process (density,
specific heat, dynamic viscosity, molecular weight, thermal
conductivity, diffusion coefficient) has been considered from
the internal thermodynamic database of AVL FIRE [22]. The
fluid and thermal properties for molten slag phase are
mentioned in Table I.
Table I: Fluid and thermal properties of molten slag phase
Density (kg/m3) 3500
Specific heat (J/kg K) 400
Dynamic viscosity (N
s/m2)
0.015
Thermal conductivity
(W/m K)
10
Turbulent Prandtl number 0.5
Reference pressure (Pa) 100000
Reference temperature
(K)
1500
Typical turbulence quantities at the inlet of the domain were
calculated from inlet velocities by considering turbulence
intensity I = 0.05 where, 81
(Re)16.0/−
≅′= inletUuI .
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Zinc fuming is a very complex process to simulate and it is
necessary to make a number of assumptions to simplify the
simulation. A large number of complex reactions are
involved, such as: reduction of zinc oxide and ferric iron, fuel
combustion, oxidation of ferrous iron oxide. In the present
simulation, only reduction of zinc oxide and fuel combustion
has been considered. We ignore the other reactions taking
place in the system (the oxidation of Fe is likely to be
important). Also, carbon was considered as a separate species
assuming that 100% of the coal is fixed carbon with no
volatile and ash content (which we know to be incorrect). As
the numerical simulation is based on Eulerian approach, it
doesn’t show the exact plume shape with sharp gas-liquid
interface (e.g. collapsing bubble plumes). However, the
results here represent a significant step in developing a
comprehensive model.
Temperature distribution for two separate phases is shown in
Fig. 4. Fig. 4(a) shows the predicted temperature profile of the
molten slag phase only after 30 seconds of the reduction
stage. Because of the computational limitation, the simulation
was run only for 30 seconds of real time. The present
simulation only considers the reduction stage of the zinc
fuming process. The simulation results revealed that there is
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, June 30 - July 2, 2010, London, U.K.
ISBN: 978-988-18210-7-2 ISSN: 2078-0958 (Print); ISSN: 2078-0966 (Online)
WCE 2010
non-uniform temperature distribution in the molten slag bath.
This temperature profile doesn’t imply steady state
distribution. These non-uniform temperature distributions in
the slag bath are expected to be uniform with longer
simulation time.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4: Temperature profile inside the furnace (a) molten
slag only (b) gas phase only
Fig. 5: Volume fraction distribution for molten slag phase
only
From the simulation results, the molten slag bath can be
divided into three zones: combustion zone near the lance tip
(1680-1780 K), bath zone below the lance tip in the bath
(1500-1600 K) and the bottom zone near the bottom surface
of the furnace (1380-1430 K). Near the surface area of the
molten slag bath, there was a thin layer of gas-liquid mixture.
The transport properties of the molten slag phase influences
this temperature distribution in the slag and the concentration
of FeO (which we currently ignored) is likely to influence
these properties significantly. Fig. 4(b) shows the temperature
distribution for gaseous phase inside the furnace which shows
the highest temperature distribution is at the lance tip and
above the bath. Fig. 5 shows the volume fraction distribution
for molten slag phase after 25 seconds of transient simulation.
The sloshing and splashing phenomena above the slag bath is
clearly visible from the volume fraction plot.
After the initiation of the combustion at the lance tip, the
plume becomes larger because of the combustion and
expansion of the gases in the slag bath. There is massive
agitation in the slag bath and sloshing phenomena is observed
from the simulation. The CFD software we used (AVL FIRE)
enables us to capture results even for micro second. The
simulation results predict that zinc fuming initiates from the
near the surface area of the molten slag bath in the combustion
zone where CO2 forms as a product of combustion of CH4. In
the combustion zone, CO forms from the CO2 by Boudouard
reaction as mentioned in equation (2). CO thus formed
initiates the first fuming process in the bath. Fig. 6(a) shows
the initial stage zinc fuming process near the lance tip area.
The fuming process accelerates from the bath near the surface
area where the temperature rises rapidly and carbon reacts
directly with ZnO in the molten slag. Fig. 6(b) shows the
fumed zinc distribution inside the furnace from the molten
slag bath.
Fig. 7(a) shows the species mass fraction distribution of CH4
in the combustion chamber at the lance tip after 10.5 seconds
of the simulation which shows CH4 being almost combusted
because of stoichiometric combustion. Because of the
swirling effect in the annular region of the lance, O2 in the air
mixes well with the CH4 in the combustion chamber and
ensures fuel-efficient combustion at the lance tip. Formation
of CO2 in the bath is shown in Fig. 7(b). The present
simulation was carried out on the assumption that the CO/CO2
ratio is 1.
(a) (b)
Fig. 6: Fumed zinc distribution inside the furnace (a) at initial
stage (b) after 30 seconds
(a) (b)
Fig. 7: (a) Species mass fraction distribution for CH4, (b)
Species mass fraction distribution for CO2
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, June 30 - July 2, 2010, London, U.K.
ISBN: 978-988-18210-7-2 ISSN: 2078-0958 (Print); ISSN: 2078-0966 (Online)
WCE 2010
Fig. 8 shows the fuming rate of Zn from the bath as a function
of temperature, experimental data are also shown for
comparison. Experimental work was done by Waladan et. al
[23] on crucible scale test work with ISF slag of 9.6% ZnO.
The present simulation was carried out by considering ISF
slag of 18% ZnO shown by point A in Fig. 3. Minor elements
in the ISF slag were not taken into consideration for the
present simulation. The produced curve shows the increasing
fuming rate with temperature, which is also consistent with
experimental results.
Fig. 8: Zinc fuming rate as a function of temperature and
comparison with experimental results of Waladan et. al [23]
The simulation results showed zinc concentration in the slag
decrease linearly with time. The linear time dependence of the
zinc elimination rate reveals the zero order reaction kinetics,
which is also consistent with the experimental results of
Richards et. al [2]. Few improvement of the model,
particularly, the treatment of the oxidation of Fe and
providing a more realistic treatment of the behavior of coal
will be incorporated. Even with these problems, these results
appear very promising.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The simulation results give some interesting insights for
complex metallurgical flows and transient concentrations of
slag components and gaseous species inside the molten slag
bath. These simulations reveal the zero order reaction
kinetics of the zinc fuming process and suggest temperature
distribution and plume shape in the molten slag bath for the 30
seconds of simulation. The results also showed that zinc
elimination rate increases with temperature. The model is still
in the improvement and validation phase. Detail reaction
kinetics with all the elements of ISF slag will be incorporated
to improve the model in addition to longer simulations. This
model forms the basis in developing more complex models to
help predict actual operations beyond simple flow modeling.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Mr. Brian Lightfoot for useful
discussions.
REFERENCES
1. Reddy, R.G., V.L. Prabhu, and D. Mantha, Zinc Fuming from
Lead Blast Furnace Slag. High Temperature Materials and
Processes, 2003. 21(6): p. 377-386.
2. Richards, G.G., J.K. Brimacombe, and G.W. Toop, Kinetics of
Zinc Slag-Fuming Process: Part I. Industrial Measurements
Metallurgical and Materials Transaction B, 1985. 16(B): p.
513-527.
3. Richards, G.G. and J.K. Brimacombe, Kinetics of Zinc
Slag-Fuming Process: Part III. Model Predictions and Analysis
of Process Kinetics. Metallurgical and Materials Transaction B,
1985. 16(B): p. 541-549.
4. Richards, G.G. and J.K. Brimacombe, Kinetics of Zinc
Slag-Fuming Process: Part II. Mathematical Model.
Metallurgical and Materials Transaction B, 1985. 16(3): p.
529-540.
5. Suzuki, R., S. Goto, and K. Azuma, On Fuming of Zinciferrous
Slags. Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, University of
Tokyo (B), 1970. XXX(3): p. 247-287.
6. Cockcroft, S.L., G.G. Richards, and J.K. Brimacombe,
Mathematical Model of Lead Behaviour in the Zinc Slag Fuming
Process. Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, 1988. 27(1): p.
27-40.
7. Cockcroft, S.L., G.G. Richards, and J.K. Brimacombe, High
Pressure coal injection in Zinc Slag Fuming. Metallurgical and
Materials Transaction B, 1989. 20(B): p. 227-235.
8. Richards, G.G. Optimization of the Zinc Slag Fuming Process. in
EPD Congress. 1994: TMS. 525-537.
9. Richards, G.G. Continuous Fuming of Zinc - Containing Slags.
in The Howard Worner International Symposium on Injection in
Pyrometallurgy. 1996. Melbourne, Australia: TMS. 97-105.
10. Miyake, M., Zinc-Lead Smelting at Hachinohe Smelter. 1995:
Hachinohe p. 39-50.
11. Choi, C.Y. and Y.H. Lee, Treament of Zinc residues by Ausmelt
Technology at Onsan Zinc Refinery, in REWAS - Global
Symposium on Recycling, Waste Treatment and Clean
Technology. 1999: San Sebastian, Spain.
12. Sofra, D.J. and A. Heinz. Effective Treatment of Zinc Bearing
Dusts & Residues – Solution Ausmelt Technology. in EMC.
2003. Hannover, Germany. 491-506.
13. Hughes, S., R.W. Matusewicz, M.A. Reuter, and D. Sherrington.
Ausmelt- Extractive value from EAF Dust. in EMC 2007.
Dusseldorf, Germany. 1193-1208.
14. Hoang, J., M.A. Reuter, R. Matusewicz, and S. Hughes. Top
Submerged Lance (TSL) Direct Zinc Smelting. in Zinc
Processing Conference. 2008. Brisbane, Australia.
15. Huda, N., J. Naser, G. Brooks, M.A. Reuter, and R. Matusewicz,
CFD Modeling of Swirl and Non-swirl Gas Injections into
Liquid Baths Using Top Submerged Lances Metall. Trans. B.,
2010. 41(1): p. 35-50.
16. Kellogg, H.H., A Computer Model of the Slag-Fuming Process
for Recovery of Zinc Oxide. Transactions of the Metallurgical
Society of AIME, 1967. 239: p. 1439-1449.
17. AVL FIRE CFD Multiphase Manual v 8.5. 2008, Austria: AVL.
18. Patankar, S.V. and D.B. Spalding, A Calculation Procedure for
Heat, Mass and Momentum Transfer in Three-Dimensional
Parabolic Flows Int. J. Heat. Mass. Trans., 1972. 15: p.
1787-1806.
19. BALE, C.W., et al., Factsage thermochemical software and
databases - recent development Computer Coupling of Phase
Diagram and Thermochemistry, 2008. 33: p. 295-311.
20. Chahed, J., V. Roig, and L. Masbernat, Eulerian-Eulerian
two-fluid model for turbulent gas-liquid bubbly flows. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow, 2003. 29: p. 23-49.
21. Magnussen, B.F. and B.H. Hjertager. On Mathematical
Modelling of Turbulent Combustion with Special Emphasis on
Soot Formation and Combustion. in Proceedings of the 16th
Symposium (International) on Combustion 1976: The
Combustion Institute. p. 719-729.
22. AVL FIRE CFD Species Transport Manual V 8. 2006, Austria:
AVL.
23. Waladan, M., G.R. Firkin, J. Bultitude-Paull, B.W. Lightfoot,
and J.M.Floyd, Top Submerged Lancing for Recovery of Zinc
from ISF Slag, in Lead-Zinc Conferrence' 90. 1990: California,
USA.
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, June 30 - July 2, 2010, London, U.K.
ISBN: 978-988-18210-7-2 ISSN: 2078-0958 (Print); ISSN: 2078-0966 (Online)
WCE 2010